llvm/lib/Analysis
Sanjoy Das 6702d23e3c [SCEV] Clean up isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges; NFCI
- ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges duplicates some
   logic already present in ConstantRange, use ConstantRange for those
   bits.

 - In some cases ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges
   returns `false` to mean "definitely false" (e.g. see the
   `LHSRange.getSignedMin().sge(RHSRange.getSignedMax())` case for
   `ICmpInst::ICMP_SLT`), but for `isKnownPredicateViaConstantRanges`,
   `false` actually means "don't know".  Get rid of this extra bit of
   code to avoid confusion.

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@259401 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2016-02-01 20:48:14 +00:00
..
2016-01-13 22:17:13 +00:00
2016-01-13 18:37:28 +00:00
2016-01-13 16:34:10 +00:00

Analysis Opportunities:

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//

In test/Transforms/LoopStrengthReduce/quadradic-exit-value.ll, the
ScalarEvolution expression for %r is this:

  {1,+,3,+,2}<loop>

Outside the loop, this could be evaluated simply as (%n * %n), however
ScalarEvolution currently evaluates it as

  (-2 + (2 * (trunc i65 (((zext i64 (-2 + %n) to i65) * (zext i64 (-1 + %n) to i65)) /u 2) to i64)) + (3 * %n))

In addition to being much more complicated, it involves i65 arithmetic,
which is very inefficient when expanded into code.

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//

In formatValue in test/CodeGen/X86/lsr-delayed-fold.ll,

ScalarEvolution is forming this expression:

((trunc i64 (-1 * %arg5) to i32) + (trunc i64 %arg5 to i32) + (-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32)))

This could be folded to

(-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32))

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//